Damian Green MP is a former First Secretary of State, and is Chair of the One Nation Caucus and MP for Ashford.
It is always bracing on a Sunday morning to pick up the paper and read an old friend describe you as “selfish” and “wicked”. But Robert Colville’s Sunday Times column last weekend brought out its rhetorical machete to use on those of us who support some amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which aim to take power away from central government planners and distribute it to local people. In other words, policies which you would have thought were squarely in the best tradition of the Centre for Policy Studies (Prop: R.Colville).
Planning is an issue which receives cursory coverage in the press and broadcast media, but which excites huge passions among people who do not normally follow politics closely. Clearly, it also excites angry passions in some commentators. But in this instance I think the anger is massively misplaced.
There are three main issues on which I take issue with those who argue that without a government target handed down ex cathedra from the high priests of the Department of Levelling Up, housebuilding in this country would collapse. But let’s at least agree that we would all like to make it easier for young people to become home-owners. Why do I believe a centralised target does not help with this?
The first reason is basic maths. There are well over 30 million homes in this country. The ambition expressed in the Government’s target is to build 300,000 a year. So if all worked according to plan we would be adding one per cent to the sum total of available houses (and of that one per cent a significant number would not be homes suitable for first-time buyers). I do not believe that this would have a significant effect of the affordability of homes at the bottom of the housing ladder, especially as the geographical distribution of the new homes would be absolutely vital in determining that price.
The second is that the underlying reason for the repeated failure to hit the targets is not the unwillingness of local councils to grant planning permission because of pressure from hordes of NIMBY boomers. At the moment there are around a million permissions for homes granted, but where no home has been built. In other words, we could meet the 300,000 a year ambition for the rest of this Parliament and beyond without granting a single extra planning permission.
Instead of blaming councils, we should look at the failure of the current regime to incentivise developers to build once they have received permission. It’s much more profitable to build up an increasingly valuable land bank than to flood the local market with new homes in a short space of time. So permission should be time-limited or become increasingly and painfully expensive over time if the option to build is not exercised. If we instituted this measure, it would do more to help young people become homeowners than anything proposed by the target-obsessed.
The third is that a central target cannot recognise the different pressures in different parts of the country. National averages for house prices are meaningless in the real world because the same house will be many times the price on the outskirts of Sevenoaks as the outskirts of Sunderland. This is precisely why we need local decisions, expressed in local plans, about the scale of development needed in each area. What we also need is a redoubling of effort on Levelling Up – which is after all what this Bill is supposed to be about. If the opportunities to get ahead and do well were better spread around the country the housing pressures in London and the South East would be eased.
Other amendments which are in the line of fire recognise these local differences, including ones which recognise that in holiday areas the vast majority of new properties are immediately sold as second homes or holiday lets, meaning that local people never see the benefit. This is a burning issue in Devon and Cornwall, and in the Lake District, but of little interest elsewhere. And therefore ia good illustration that all planning is local – just as all politics is said to be.
I do not resile from my support for these amendments. They would promote a planning system in which responsible local councils would propose realistic targets for their area, and would have the means both to promote housebuilding in the right places, and resist it where it is not wanted. If we can achieve that, we can take the heat out of the debate, and we can all be friends again.
Damian Green MP is a former First Secretary of State, and is Chair of the One Nation Caucus and MP for Ashford.
It is always bracing on a Sunday morning to pick up the paper and read an old friend describe you as “selfish” and “wicked”. But Robert Colville’s Sunday Times column last weekend brought out its rhetorical machete to use on those of us who support some amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which aim to take power away from central government planners and distribute it to local people. In other words, policies which you would have thought were squarely in the best tradition of the Centre for Policy Studies (Prop: R.Colville).
Planning is an issue which receives cursory coverage in the press and broadcast media, but which excites huge passions among people who do not normally follow politics closely. Clearly, it also excites angry passions in some commentators. But in this instance I think the anger is massively misplaced.
There are three main issues on which I take issue with those who argue that without a government target handed down ex cathedra from the high priests of the Department of Levelling Up, housebuilding in this country would collapse. But let’s at least agree that we would all like to make it easier for young people to become home-owners. Why do I believe a centralised target does not help with this?
The first reason is basic maths. There are well over 30 million homes in this country. The ambition expressed in the Government’s target is to build 300,000 a year. So if all worked according to plan we would be adding one per cent to the sum total of available houses (and of that one per cent a significant number would not be homes suitable for first-time buyers). I do not believe that this would have a significant effect of the affordability of homes at the bottom of the housing ladder, especially as the geographical distribution of the new homes would be absolutely vital in determining that price.
The second is that the underlying reason for the repeated failure to hit the targets is not the unwillingness of local councils to grant planning permission because of pressure from hordes of NIMBY boomers. At the moment there are around a million permissions for homes granted, but where no home has been built. In other words, we could meet the 300,000 a year ambition for the rest of this Parliament and beyond without granting a single extra planning permission.
Instead of blaming councils, we should look at the failure of the current regime to incentivise developers to build once they have received permission. It’s much more profitable to build up an increasingly valuable land bank than to flood the local market with new homes in a short space of time. So permission should be time-limited or become increasingly and painfully expensive over time if the option to build is not exercised. If we instituted this measure, it would do more to help young people become homeowners than anything proposed by the target-obsessed.
The third is that a central target cannot recognise the different pressures in different parts of the country. National averages for house prices are meaningless in the real world because the same house will be many times the price on the outskirts of Sevenoaks as the outskirts of Sunderland. This is precisely why we need local decisions, expressed in local plans, about the scale of development needed in each area. What we also need is a redoubling of effort on Levelling Up – which is after all what this Bill is supposed to be about. If the opportunities to get ahead and do well were better spread around the country the housing pressures in London and the South East would be eased.
Other amendments which are in the line of fire recognise these local differences, including ones which recognise that in holiday areas the vast majority of new properties are immediately sold as second homes or holiday lets, meaning that local people never see the benefit. This is a burning issue in Devon and Cornwall, and in the Lake District, but of little interest elsewhere. And therefore ia good illustration that all planning is local – just as all politics is said to be.
I do not resile from my support for these amendments. They would promote a planning system in which responsible local councils would propose realistic targets for their area, and would have the means both to promote housebuilding in the right places, and resist it where it is not wanted. If we can achieve that, we can take the heat out of the debate, and we can all be friends again.